Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not identify an error in her application for British citizenship and passport as part of its nationality checking service. The application was refused and she had to make a further application with the correct document and pay another fee of £1260. The Council did not check properly Miss B’s documents for her application for citizenship. It will, within a month of the date of the decision, refund the money she paid.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council did not identify an error in her application for British citizenship and passport as part of its nationality checking service. She says that as a result the application was refused. She had to make a further application with the correct document and pay another fee of £1260.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint and spoke to Miss B. I asked the Council for its comments on the complaint and additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Miss B and the Council and invited their comments

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss B used the Council’s Nationality Checking Service. This is a service offered by councils in partnership with the Home Office to check applications for British citizenship. It aims to increase the proportion of applications it receives which it can complete without further enquiry. It also has the benefit of allowing applicants to keep original documents instead of sending them with their application. The Council stopped offering this service in October 2018.
6. Miss B wanted to use the Council’s service to check documents she intended to send to the Home Office in support of her application for British citizenship and a British passport.
7. A Council officer went through the documents she had for her application and submitted them to the Home Office. The cost of the application was £1260.70 and the fee charged by the Council for the checking service was £95. The Home Office refused Miss B’s application because she had not provided a document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card.
8. Miss B applied for a permanent residence card and resubmitted her application to the Home Office. The application was approved.
9. Miss B complained to the Council saying it should have realised she had not produced the necessary document. The Council responded saying the onus was on her as the applicant to ensure she met the residence requirements. It said it would refund the £95 checking fee. Miss B says she has not received the refund.

Analysis

Jurisdiction

10. Miss B had a contractual relationship with the Council in using this service. But I am satisfied it would not be reasonable to expect her to take it to court for breach of contract. In reaching this conclusion I considered the relatively small sum she paid the Council as well as the claimed loss of the Home Office fee.
11. The service the Council provided is regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner which has its own procedure for handling complaints about service provision. Its website sets out what it cannot help with and this includes complainants wanting ‘refunds and compensation’. A refund of the application fee is the remedy Miss B wants. If the Ombudsman did not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint, Miss B would be left without a remedy. So, I am satisfied the Ombudsman is in a better position than the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner to remedy the claimed injustice arising from any possible fault.

Guidance

12. The Home Office issued guidance to councils providing this service (‘Nationality Checking Service: Local Authority Guidance’). The guidance sets out the criteria for making an application and evidence required in support. This included: passport to cover 5 years of the qualifying period (the period where an applicant was not subject to immigration restrictions); confirmation of immigration status; if no passport, alternative evidence of residence to cover the outstanding qualifying period; and evidence of the ‘Life and Language’ test.
13. The guidance states:
• There is a need for council officers to satisfy themselves the person presenting the application is the person named on it;
• There is a need to confirm the applicant’s age, ensure details on documents provided match those on the form, ensure the declaration is complete, confirm the completion of all sections of the form, and confirm the applicant was present in the UK at the start of the qualifying period;
• Documents need photocopying and certifying;
• Applicants need to supply passports covering the entire qualifying period. Where this is not possible, they must produce evidence of residence in the UK. It sets out alternative evidence of residence. If in doubt, it states a council can contact a Home Office helpdesk;
• For all applications from European Union nationals, alternative evidence of residence is required along with passports to cover the qualifying period. It then lists categories of nationals and details of evidence they should submit;
• The need to check the date the country concerned joined the European Communities as nationals;
• Those who have been outside the UK for 6 months or more in any one of the 5 years residence period will have ‘broken’ their residence. It lists 4 circumstances where this does not apply, such as absence not more than 12 months for an important reason, such as child birth for example; and
• The applicant having passed the knowledge of ‘Life and Language’ by passing a test or having an acceptable qualification. Those from specified English speaking countries are exempt.
14. In the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section of the guide, it states when an applicant visits a council for this service, staff will check the application form is completed properly, that the fee enclosed is correct, and that ‘all necessary accompanying documents have been enclosed’.
15. The Council no longer provides this service but the advice it provided on its website at the time to applicants stated:

It was able to:

• Check that you have completed all the application forms correctly;
• Check that you have all the relevant documents required;
• Check that the correct fee has been submitted;
• Photocopy valuable documents, such as passports and marriage certificates;
• Certify the copies and return any originals to you;
• Forward your application to UK Visas and immigration by special delivery.

Was there fault by the Council?

16. The key issue here is that Miss B’s documents did not include a permanent residence card; only a registration certificate. Miss B did not realise that was not sufficient proof of her residence. The guidance refers to the documents needed to show proof of residency and that if officers were in any doubt they can telephone for guidance. The Council did not identify the registration certificate was not sufficient proof of residency and that is fault.
17. Had the Council properly checked the documents it would have identified the necessary documents were not included. Miss B would then have avoided submitting an application which was inevitably going to be refused and having to submit a fresh application and pay a further fee.

Agreed action

18. The Council does not accept it was at fault but has agreed to pay Miss B the fee she paid of £1260. The Council has said it has already refunded Miss B the £95 checking fee it charged but Miss B says she has not received this. The Council should, therefore, pay Miss B £95 as well.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Council did not check properly Miss B’s documents for her application for citizenship. It will, within a month of the date of the decision, refund the money she paid.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman